System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 02/23/2026 16:42 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20130149 MP/H Rules/Histology--Testis: What is the histology code for a testis primary with embryonal carcinoma (70%), yolk sac tumor (30%), and a focus of seminoma (<1%)? See Discussion.

The right orchiectomy specimen showed a mixed histology tumor. The retroperitoneal lymph nodes showed teratoma, NOS only. Does the presence of teratoma in the lymph nodes change the histology coding?

The MP/H Rules for Other Sites, Table 2 (Mixed and Combination Codes) does not include the combination of embryonal carcinoma, yolk sac tumor and seminoma. SINQ 20110013 does state the combination of embryonal carcinoma and yolk sac tumor should be coded to histology 9065/3 [germ cell tumor, nonseminomatous]. In this case, is the focus of seminoma comprising <1% included when coding the histology? If the seminoma is included, Table 2 still does not address this combination.

Code the histology to mixed germ cell tumor [9085/3] per Rule H16; code the appropriate combination/mixed code when there are multiple specific histologies.

According to the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Male Genital Organs, tumors of more than one histologic type (mixed forms) can occur in any combination of various germ cell histologies including embryonal, yolk sac, teratoma, and choriocarcinoma. Mixed teratoma and seminoma is included under histology code 9085/3 [mixed germ cell tumor] in the ICD-O-3. The revised MP/H rules will expand on these mixed testicular histologies.

Priority for coding histology is using the diagnosis from the primary site (when possible) over the histology from a metastatic site. The presence of teratoma, NOS in the retroperitoneal lymph nodes does not change the histology code.

2013
20130182 Primary site--Head and Neck: How is primary site coded if a floor of mouth biopsy reveals microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma but the definitive resection of the tongue and floor of mouth unifocal lesion reveals only in situ squamous cell cancer? See Discussion.

Patient with overlapping lesion of tongue and floor of mouth. Initial biopsy of floor of mouth reveals microinvasive squamous cell cancer. Definitive resection reveals in situ squamous cell cancer. Pathology report states unifocal tumor. The tumor site on pathology report is documented as involving the tongue and floor of mouth.

Should the primary site be coded to floor of mouth because it is the site of invasive disease? Or is primary site C148 [overlapping sites of lip, oral cavity and pharynx] because invasion should not be used to determine primary site?

Code the primary site to C068 [overlapping lesion of other and unspecified parts of the mouth]. Based on the information provided, this is a tumor described as a "book-leaf" lesion a lesion that overlaps the floor of the mouth and the underside of the tongue. 2013
20130116 Histology/Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How are the histology and primary site coded if a pleurocentesis is compatible with plasmablastic plasmacytoma/lymphoma when no further information is available?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the histology to 9735/3 [plasmablastic lymphoma] and the primary site to C809 [unknown] per Rule PH27.

Code the histology specified when the only histology for the case is preceded by ambiguous terminology. For this case, code the histology to plasmablastic lymphoma because it is the only histology mentioned in the diagnosis.

Per the Heme DB Abstractor Notes section for plasmablastic lymphoma, most patients present with Stage III-IV disease. The positive pleural fluid is likely due to advanced disease. In the absence of any other information for this case, Rule PH27 applies, "Code primary site to unknown primary site C809 when there is no evidence of lymphoma in lymph nodes AND the physician documents in the medical record that he/she suspects that the lymphoma originates in an organ(s) OR multiple organ involvement without any nodal involvement."

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130084 Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned when a patient is diagnosed on a 3/16/12 lymph node biopsy with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma which was followed on 4/18/12 with bone marrow biopsy diagnosis of follicular lymphoma? See Discussion. The patient has extensive right-sided cervical, supraclavicular, hilar, mediastinal and gastrohepatic adenopathy. A cervical node biopsy on 3/16/2012 showed DLBCL. On 04/18/2012 a bone marrow biopsy showed follicular lymphoma. The patient was started on CHOP/Rituxan after the bone marrow biopsy.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case is accessioned as a single primary, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] per Rule M12. Abstract the acute neoplasm (DLBCL) when a patient is originally diagnosed with an acute neoplasm and the neoplasm reverts to the chronic neoplasm (follicular lymphoma) AND the patient has not been treated for the acute neoplasm.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130083 Ambiguous terminology/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is the histology coded if an FNA reveals high grade B-cell lymphoma, compatible with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and the treating physician states this is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? See Discussion.

The FNA showed high grade B-cell lymphoma, morphologically compatible with diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Special studies state: Tumor cells are positive for Vimentin, CD45, and CD20, focally weakly positive for CD43; negative for Myeloperoxidase, CD99, AE1/AE3, CK7, CK20, S100, CD3, cyclin D1, CD34, CD5 and TTF1. The cellular findings and immunophenotype are compatible with large B-cell lymphoma.

The treating physician refers to this disease process and is treating the patient for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Should the histology be coded as B-cell lymphoma, NOS (9591/3) because both the FNA and the immunophenotyping use ambiguous terminology? Does the physician reference to the disease process as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Stage II-AE impact the histology used?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the histology to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [9680/3] because the physician states this is a DLBCL and is treating the patient accordingly. Although the pathology report was only compatible with DLBCL, there was a subsequent clinical diagnosis that confirmed a diagnosis of DLBCL. In addition, the patient was treated for DLBCL.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013
20130023

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Why has reportability changed for "intradural extramedullary schwannomas"? Are all "spinal" schwannomas reportable or only those stated to be "intradural"? See Discussion.

If intradural schwannomas are to be collected for cases diagnosed 2011 and later, why were they not included in the 2012 SEER Manual? Should collection of spinal schwannomas be postponed until the next revision of the MP/H Rules?

The reportability of schwannomas was not initially agreed upon by the standard setters. After the issue was discussed by the CoC, NPCR and SEER Technical Workgroup and an agreement was reached. See #2 under Reportability in the Data Collection Answers from the CoC, NPCR, SEER Technical Workgroup http://www.seer.cancer.gov/registrars/data-collection.html#reportability.

The most accurate and most current instruction is to report these spinal tumors when they arise within the spinal dura or spinal nerve roots, or when they are stated to be "intradural" or "of the nerve root." Do not report these tumors when they arise in the peripheral nerves. The peripheral nerves are the portion of nerve extending beyond the spinal dura.

Spinal cord intradural schwannomas originate in spinal nerve roots. Spinal nerve root is best classified as spinal cord, C720.

2013
20130094 MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Lung: How many primaries are accessioned and which M rule applies for a 2010 diagnosis of clear cell adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe lung followed by a 2012 diagnosis of adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin without evidence of a primary lung tumor? See Discussion.

Patient was diagnosed with T1 N0 M0 adenocarcinoma with prominent clear cell features [8310/3] in the LUL on 08/05/2010. The patient underwent a lobectomy only.

On 10/09/2012 the patient underwent an iliac bone biopsy showing non-small cell carcinoma with glandular and squamous features [8560/3]. Clinically, the physician is calling this stage IV adenosquamous carcinoma of lung origin involving lymph nodes, spleen and bones. There were no FDG avid pulmonary nodules found. There was no pathologic comparison to the prior lung tumor.

Should the 2012 diagnosis be a new primary because the histology is different from the 2010 diagnosis? Or should this be one primary because there appears to be only metastatic disease with no new primary lung tumor identified in 2012? The choice of one primary seems supported by the fact that the 2012 tumor showed glandular and squamous features, and the 2010 tumor also showed glandular and clear cell (NOS) features. The clear cell could have been a clear cell squamous cell carcinoma. The original tumor was not re-examined.

Accession a single primary, clear cell adenocarcinoma [8310/3] of the left upper lobe lung [C341] diagnosed on 08/05/2010.

The MP/H Rules do not apply to the 2012 diagnosis because only metastatic sites were examined and there was no re-examination of the original 2010 tumor. Therefore, the disease process in 2012 is assumed to be metastatic from the lung primary diagnosed in 2010.

2013
20130184

Reportability--Appendix: Are low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms reportable?

For cases diagnosed prior to 1/1/2022

A low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is not reportable. The WHO classification designates LAMN with the behavior code /1 [uncertain whether benign or malignant].

 2013
20130001

Reportability--Brain and CNS: Are hemangioma, NOS (9120/0), cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) or venous hemangioma (9122/0) reportable when they arise in the brain or CNS?

 

Hemangioma, NOS (9120/0) and cavernous hemangioma (9121/0) arising in the dura and parenchyma of the brain/CNS are reportable.

Venous angiomas (9122/0) are not reportable wherever they arise. The primary site for venous hemangioma arising in the brain is blood vessel (C490). The combination of 9122/0 and C490 is not reportable. This is a venous abnormality. Previously called venous angiomas, these are currently referred to as a developmental venous anomalies (DVA).

2013
20130101 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma reportable? See Discussion. The pathology report states, "plasma cell dyscrasia, favor MGUS vs. smoldering myeloma." The patient then died of a heart attack and no further information is available. If this is reportable, what histology code applies?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case is not reportable. Neither plasma cell dyscrasia nor MGUS are reportable. Smoldering myeloma was given as a possible diagnosis, but never confirmed.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2013